Canada's national embarrassment
By Jackson Murphy
web posted October 1, 2001
As if the Canadian Prime Minister's delay in visiting 'ground zero'
in New York in favor of a political fundraiser wasn't enough, his
government has failed to address the matters of the past few
weeks in any serious way.
In that speech Chrétien claimed that Canada would offer,
"support and comfort", suggesting that that was, "the Canadian
way." The National Post's Christie Blatchford responded by
writing that, "in a single generation, Canada has gone from the
nation which produced brash and fierce Canucks who were the
affectionate despair of wartime England to one whose people are
akin to social workers."
Much of Chrétien's weak stance is tied to the fear that his legacy
is crashing down around him. He invested so much of his political
capital upon fiscal restraint, balancing the budget and doing
foreign policy on the cheap that he is completely incapable of
changing his plans now. The entire administration, save minister
of Foreign Affairs John Manley, is the proverbial deer caught in
the headlights.
How else could you explain how the government has lost at least
27,000 people facing outstanding deportation orders from the
last five years for refugee claims that were rejected. This is not to
suggest that all of these are a danger, or terrorists at all. But it is
appalling to think that if the government cannot handle even this
task what else is it hiding?
Both the Prime Minister and Art Eggleton, the minister of
Defense have steadfastly defended that Canada is ready to serve
The United States has yet to ask for our military for assistance
and there is good reason why.
The new United Nations 2001 Register of Conventional
Weapons report details a shocking contrasting picture to the
Alfred E. Newman, "what me worry" attitude of this government.
Canada has long neglected national defense and security. It
spends a reported $265 per capita on defense compared to a
$589 average by NATO countries and $504 by the G7 nations.
The 2000-2001 budget was $11.2 billion marginally up from the
previous year's $10.3 billion-but much of that increase was not
directed towards military capabilities. That represents half the
average of other NATO nations and only Luxembourg
(Population 400,000) spends less than Canada.
More damaging than budget cuts is how Canada has tailor made
foreign policy on the broader framework of 'peacekeeping'. The
military has not been seen as either a defensive or offensive force
for nearly a decade.
The report and another by the Conference of Defense
Associations (CDA), a pro-military organization whose mandate
is to inform the Canadian public about security issues, point to
the lack of manpower. In 1989 the Canadian armed forces were
87,000 strong. Now there are manpower shortages as the force
shrinks to 50,684 by March of 2002.
Unfortunately Canada's numerous peacekeeping missions and
budget cuts have left the military unable to do even the most
simple of tasks. It is unable to mount a brigade force (4,000 to
6,000 personnel). Even if they could meet that goal there have
been no brigade level exercises since 1995.
In this war on terrorism the most likely scenario would include
sending the Joint Task Force (JTF). This is a Special Forces
unit-but it is small and would have to be at least doubled. At best
Canada could send somewhere between 100 and 1,200 troops-
although how long that would take is unclear.
One major flaw in Canada's military is the lack of transport
aircraft and helicopters. The last time Canada tried to use the
ancient Hercules planes they broke down on the way to a
mission in East Timor. Any major mobilization will be
constrained by the lack of transportation aircraft.
Any troops we do send are going to represent a, "very high
proportion of our existing military because we have for too long
done our national defense on the cheap," wrote Michael
Goodspeed, retired officer of the Canadian Armed Forces.
There are also the conflicting reports of Canada's Air force. The
UN report shows that Canada has roughly 143 combat aircraft.
Goodspeed suggested that there were 85 CF-18's and that we
could contribute 2 squads of 15-20 but would need major
augmentation in both weapons and support systems.
But retired colonel Michel Drapeau has suggested that there are
only 122 combat aircraft-but only 60 aircrews to fly them. There
was discussion that many of these planes with no crews to fly
them would be mothballed. The majority of the planes, the CF-
18, are considered by military experts to be from a "bygone
generation."
The other aspect of this 'new' war is going to be intelligence and
it should come as no surprise that Canada's intelligence
capabilities has been hit with budget cuts and national security
has been compromised in the name of saving a few bucks.
The Communication Security Establishment (CSE) is charged
with the responsibility of listening to communications throughout
the world yet is not supported by any human intelligence. The
Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) is charged with
the domestic intelligence efforts. CSIS is a, "maligned, ignored,
tiny, and toothless investigative agency," wrote Goodspeed.
The two agencies cost taxpayers a total of $200 million each
year-a figure that approaches the per capita expenses of their
FBI/NSA counterparts south of the border. But a closer
inspection reveals how utterly unprepared the agencies were for
the attack on September 11th. One example shows that at the
CSIS Islamic office in Toronto where 12 intelligence officers
work it is widely speculated that not one of them can speak or
read any Arabic.
The US has been unwilling to ask for our help in intelligence
matters mostly because we have little to offer them in terms of
hard information. Likewise the US is not interested in sharing any
of their intelligence, as we cannot reciprocate.
The only solutions to these problems are to pump hundreds of
millions of dollars into both programs and to authorize the CSE
to put human intelligence officers overseas.
Given the mounting evidence Canada has left its population
completely unprotected for any attack-either symmetrical or
asymmetrical. We spent months and years trying to ban land
mines throughout the world but have yet to take seriously the
new threats that the nation now faces.
The 1994 White Paper on Defence has been the guiding force
behind all decisions in the past eight years. "The primary
obligation of the Department of National Defence and the
Canadian Forces is to protect the country and its citizens from
challenges to their security. In the final analysis, a nation not
worth defending is a nation not worth preserving."
The document goes on to call for a "multi-purpose, combat-
capable armed forces" and for Canada to "participate effectively
in multilateral peace and stability operations", defend North
America, and respond to, "aggression elsewhere."
By most of these counts Canada has failed. The CDA report
concludes, "Canada can now contribute only token forces to
NATO, United Nations, and coalition operations." The report
suggests that the forces be returned to 60,000-75,000 in
strength and that an immediate $1 billion per year is needed in
addition to a stimulus of $5-6 billion to provide new equipment.
To solve these problems will take many different solutions. It is
going to take greater military spending, better equipment, more
troops, greater accountability of politicians and intelligence
services, harmonization of policy with the US, and a greater
focus on intelligence. It is also going to take the political leaders
to give up their insignificant 'legacy' projects and start reassuring
the citizens with action.
Like the United States, Canada needs to create a new cabinet
level position charged with safeguarding 'homeland defense'. This
office must coordinate the largely autonomous and fragmented
bodies of CSIS, the CSE, the Department of National Defense,
the police and RCMP, Immigration, and customs. This office
could also coordinate efforts with the new position in the US to
aid in the overall security of North America. In is not too soon to
promote a North American "perimeter defense" that will
guarantee trade continues while securing the vast reaches of the
continent.
Are we serious about ensuring the protection of this nation?
Currently the answer is no. We are unable to give any help to the
war on terrorism and that is a shameful embarrassment especially
to a nation, which has shed blood at Vimy Ridge, at Normandy,
and served to protect and promote freedom throughout the past
century.
Jackson Murphy is a young independent commentator from
Vancouver, Canada writing on domestic and international
political issues (http:
//www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/international_relations_new).
He is a frequent contributor to Enter Stage Right and writes
weekly at suite101.com. You can reach him at
jacksonmurphy@telus.net.
Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com